The Best Wide Angle ...

[Gidders]

In Ken Rockwell's article Your Camera Doesn't Matter he quotes Ernst Haas as saying in one of his workshops "The best wide angle - two steps backwards"

Well having changed my Canon 17-85 for a 24-105 I was missing the wide angle end of the range as 24mm on a 1.6 crop factor body (20D) only equates to 38mm in full frame/35 mm terms so as it was my birthday I thought I would treat myself and see if a really wide lens would give me a different perspective on life or would Ernst be right and would two steps backward give the same result

Well the lens arrived a few days ago and I have to say I'm bowled over - it gives a totally different way of looking at things. Sure if you just want a bit more field of view then moving back will do it for you (although that's not always possible). But if you want a different view on reality straight out of the camera then an ultra wide angle is the way to go.

I've posted a few of the first results in my gallery - links below

Victoria Square
We are not Amused
Hall Green Station
Powell's Pool

- all shot as wide as the lens will go

[Canis Vulpes]

Is your birthday treat a Sigma 10-20mm by any chance?

[Leif]

Originally Posted by Gidders

In Ken Rockwell's article Your Camera Doesn't Matter he quotes Ernst Haas as saying in one of his workshops "The best wide angle - two steps backwards"

...

Well the lens arrived a few days ago and I have to say I'm bowled over - it gives a totally different way of looking at things. Sure if you just want a bit more field of view then moving back will do it for you (although that's not always possible). But if you want a different view on reality straight out of the camera then an ultra wide angle is the way to go.

IMO Rockwell sometimes forgets to think, and this is one good example. Where you are in relation to the subject determines the perspective. So, a wide angle lens allows you to get really close to the subject, and get striking perspective. Your pictures are perfect examples of that.

I find wide angle lenses really hard to use, but a couple of my favourite shots are taken with a wide angle. I think the problem is that they include so much that it is hard to control the image. Or maybe my personality is not suited to them.

I also disagree with the idea that my camera does not matter ... but that can wait for another thread. Or have we already done that one to death?

[lesleyr]

I was also thinking in terms of the Sigma 10 - 20 mm - which I also have. When you get it "right" with a wide angle lens, the results are stunning. And it is a different perspective, as you say.

Your first three pics on the gallery are classic examples of this. And the other way round (i.e. big sky) can be equally impressive, if you get it right.

Lesley

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

Is your birthday treat a Sigma 10-20mm by any chance?

I looked at this lens, and the Sigma 12-24 particularly as this will work on full frame if I ever change to a 5D (or replacement) What put me off the 12-24 was the size & weight of it - its a BIG chunk of glass.

In the end I decided to bite the bullet and went for the Canon 10-22 which gets excellent reviews everywhere I read

[Canis Vulpes]

Originally Posted by Gidders

In the end I decided to bite the bullet and went for the Canon 10-22 which gets excellent reviews everywhere I read

A good decision considering the early yield of results. Very nice quality.

[misty56]

Originally Posted by Stephen Fox

A good decision considering the early yield of results. Very nice quality.

thinking of gettign a wide lens my self, totaly confused, what to get, read the write up of what you put, can anybody help, had a few idea thrown at me, open to more

Misty

[Birdsnapper]

Originally Posted by misty56

thinking of gettign a wide lens my self, totaly confused, what to get, read the write up of what you put, can anybody help, had a few idea thrown at me, open to more

Misty

After much deliberation, I recently bought the Sigma 10-20 rather than the Canon 10-22. From the reviews that I've read, the general opinion seems to be that the Canon is the better lens, but the Sigma is better value for money. I felt that my photography wouldn't be limited by the lens I use. I'm really pleased with it and have posted some images taken with it.

Try Googling 'PhotoZone' for reviews and also 'Fred Miranda' for users' opinions.

Wide-angle photography opens up a whole new word - I'm sure that you'll be pleased with whichever one you get.

[john crossley]

I'd go for the Canon 16-35 f2.8. Afterall the lens quality is the most important single factor.

[misty56]

Originally Posted by birdsnapper

After much deliberation, I recently bought the Sigma 10-20 rather than the Canon 10-22. From the reviews that I've read, the general opinion seems to be that the Canon is the better lens, but the Sigma is better value for money. I felt that my photography wouldn't be limited by the lens I use. I'm really pleased with it and have posted some images taken with it.

Try Googling 'PhotoZone' for reviews and also 'Fred Miranda' for users' opinions.

Wide-angle photography opens up a whole new word - I'm sure that you'll be pleased with whichever one you get.

hi thank you for the advise, got them sites saved, who is Fred Miranda please

Misty